A Station Eight Fan Web Site
Ask Greg Archives
Goliath
Archive Index
: « First : « 100 : « 10 : Displaying #426 - #435 of 481 records. : 10 » : Last » :
Posts Per Page: 1 : 10 : 25 : 50 : 100 : All :
Thank you Blaise
Blaise wrote:
In the end, two things above all others IMHO should be remembered in ANY debate of Goliath vs. Brooklyn:
1) Brooklyn admires and looks up to Goliath, despite any disagreements.
2) Goliath made Brooklyn Second-in-command because he felt Brooklyn was best suited for the job.
To put down one is actually indirectly putting down the other.
That bears repeating:
TO PUT DOWN ONE IS ACTUALLY INDIRECTLY PUTTING DOWN THE OTHER.
You guys can do what you want, of course.
And I certainly don't mind in depth discussions of either character. I thought Toku Kaioto's essay on Brooklyn was fantastic.
And I don't mind a fun poll like: "Ladies, which garg-hunk do you prefer?"
But I don't really see what you get by putting the characters' natures in opposition debate, as if they were or are in some competition with each other.
Now I promise, that was my last word on the subject.
Joxter the Mighty writes...
Recently, when someone asked you what other cartoons you liked, you mentioned among them, "Old Development Bonkers"... What did you mean by that?
Greg responds...
There were two versions of Bonkers. One that I developed which featured Bonkers, Jitters, Sgt. Grating and Miranda Wright.
There were some problems on the show that came to light when episodes first came back from overseas. Disney panicked. Over-reacted. They basically took everyone off the show and started from scratch with a new developement and production team.
They tossed everything but Bonkers himself. Brought in Detective Piquel, and I think, watered down the premise. Some of the episodes might have been individually better -- and I think the art direction was definitely improved, but the ideas that made the show unique were flattened or ignored.
Then to add insult to injury they aired all the NEW episodes first, and created a "Transition episode" to transition from the Piquel episodes to the Miranda episodes, making it appear as if our stuff had been an afterthought. Given that our show didn't LOOK as good, it made us seem like a poor replacement, when in fact I think our stories were better (just my opinion).
By the way, the Miranda/Bonkers relationship was a clear precedent for Elisa/Goliath. (Doesn't that seem strange?) And because I didn't get to play out all my HILL STREET BLUES inspired cop ideas in Bonkers, it gave impetus to making Elisa a cop so that I could play that stuff out in Gargoyles.
Todd Jensen writes...
In your vision, how does Goliath feel about Broadway and Angela's relationship? Does he approve of Broadway as a future "son-in-law"?
Greg responds...
Of course.
But again, try not to think too much like a human. Angela is just one of many clan-daughters. Since you know he likes Broadway, why wouldn't he want the big guy to mate with one of them?
Adam writes...
Hi Greg
Once again thanks for the opportunity to chew the fat.
One thing that always bothered me was how easliy the surviving clan memebers pick up their lives after the sudden murder of almost everyone they cared for. When they wake up in Manhattan for the first time, by their reckoninging, the massacre occurred the day before and would be fresh in their minds. I couldn't even imagine getting out of bed or even wanting to go on if I lost my family. Yet the trio are resilient enough to go exploring. I know they are in a brave new world and all but would they be so thrill seeking after so recently being rocked with grief. I hope I don't sound overly critical here, I don't mean to be. It just appears that the emotional impact of the massacre on the clan isn't as pervasive through the series as I'd expect. I just keep coming back to the notion that grief over a loss of that magnitude would be almost paralyzing. Would they even want to be alive?. Obviously, for the show, yes but ..... uhhh .
And then there is Tempatation. I know Brooklyn is grateful to Demona for saving him from the bikers, but you have to think that in the back of his mind he's thinking, "My family and friends were killed because of what you did !" I'm surprised he didn't go for her throat. How angry are we at the drunk driver who unintnentional kills. I certainly wouldn't want to be in the same room with that individual let alone take a tour of the city them.
If the clan is capable of getting on with their lives so quicky and still not give into to hating Demona then they are certainly better than I am.
Greg responds...
The massacre is fresh in their minds, because no new experiences have taken their place. But they were asleep. Not in suspended animation. There is a sense of time having passed. A long time. A lot of dreaming. Not the next day.
I think maybe we could have, and should have, done more with survivors' guilt, post-traumatic stress syndrome, devastation, etc. We mostly personified that in Goliath, in episodes like "Awakening, Part Two" and "Shadows of the Past". It WAS more emblematic than honest, I'm afraid.
But, yeah, we did have a series to do. And five suicidal miserable gargoyles don't make for much of a show. Plus, I think we gave them REASONS to go on. A new world to explore and understand. Opponents to distract them. New friends to help mitigate the pain. And we did deal with it on occasion and would have continued to do the same.
As for "Temptation", I think the very confusion that the Massacre engendered kept Brooklyn from thinking straight. When there are so few gargoyles and we know that humans (i.e. the Vikings) did the actual killing, it's hard to know (that early on) whether or not to maintain a hate for Demona. Obviously, after Temptation he didn't have that problem.
And, you know what, maybe these particular Gargoyles are a bit better than you and I. I chose to write about heroes. Not average joes.
Ambrosia writes...
Greg, as always, you are so delightful. I enjoyed reading your rambling about Awakening part 3 and all the little behind-the-scenes stuff you told us about. Ambrosia chuckles. Poor Brooklyn. I did wonder why he was always the one falling in and out of love. Curse you, Maggie.
No, I liked that we saw Demona ahead of time. I remember freaking out when I saw her alive, and yet it took nothing away from the scene where she is reunited with Goliath. And I think everyone knew that Xanatos was a "bad guy" although Demona was something of a shocker for me. I think it was a great dramatic moment.
I loved Goliath's line, "and please, don't fall off the building this time!" Unfortunately- and understand that it's hard for me to give criticism even though I know you invite it- but I liked Goliath much better in these 5 eps than anywhere else. He was thoughtful, calm and level-headed and I liked that in him. Later, though, he seemed to roar much more often and break things down before he thought about it carefully. I hafta say, Greg, this upset me a little. Consider Enter MacBeth. Goliath rampages throughout the whole ep tearing down MacBeth's home. Yeah, MacBeth kept hiding from him and he was frustrated, but the Goliath from Awakening might have found a better way to handle it. Which brings me to something else. Why was MacBeth running and not facing him in an honorable fight? MacBeth is reversed from my opinion of Goliath. I didn't like him at first (he seemed to be too much the stereotype of a villain) but as his depth grew, I liked him more.
Something that always bugged me about the scene when Hudson is named: He asks if the sky needs a name... the sky's name is sky! I'm going to have to be a human too and agree with Elisa: things do need names. I did love the scene with Brooklyn, Lexington and Tom. It warmed my heart to hear Lexington casually answer "We look different" to Tom's question, "How do you tell each other apart?" So cute! And even better to the question, "But what do you call each other?" was Brooklyn's, "friend."
I never gave a thought to part three not having any action. I loved it and, you're right: the characters themselves held my attention. Correction: my rapt attention.
Greg responds...
Erin (age 5 & 1/2) responds:
My favorite character is Tom. I liked the part when he said how do you tell each other apart. And I liked how he looked when he was little. And when he was a little boy.
Greg (age 36 & 1/2) responds:
Good point about Goliath. I always felt we had plenty of justification when Goliath was behaving badly. It came out of his lack of understanding of the twentieth century, his warrior up-bringing and occasional flares of temper and extreme frustration. The same thing happened in Act One of Awakening, Part Two. In "Enter Macbeth", Macbeth was intentionally goading him, which helped explain his increasing frustration and the resulting destruction. I don't think there was a better answer for Goliath on Macbeth's home turf. And once, Macbeth revealed his flawed plan to catch Demona, Goliath laughs, and the tables turn. And again, we have a Goliath who is responding with more thought -- and more success.
Macbeth's change takes place over time intentionally. He starts out bitter and borderline suicidal. And over the course of his multiple appearances, finds new reasons to carry on. Plus, of course, it never hurts to learn a characters background (as in "City of Stone") in order to generate more sympathy for him.
As for the name thing, I think YOU are the one splitting hairs. The sky is called the sky, the way Hudson is called a gargoyle. But to Hudson, you don't need to give the sky an additional name like, say, Fred. Hudson is used to being referred by his relationship to whomever he's talking to. Brother, Father, mentor, Leader, Friend, Old Friend, etc. The need to pinpoint him with an identity that isn't relative is human, not gargoyle. But even with all that, I'm human too, and I also feel the need to name -- it's addictive. I just like to point out the conceptual difference between traditional gargoyle customs and human changes.
Todd Jensen writes...
Oh, one thing that I forgot to mention in my reply to your "Awakening Part Two" ramble, but I was intrigued by your mention of how you were deliberately going for "Gargoyles" being different from "Batman", and that list of differences that you drew up. I can see a few of those differences, of course (some you mentioned in that Gargoyles Bible for Season One, but a few I can come up with myself - I've seen some episodes of "Batman:TAS" myself, although I never quite got into it as much as I got into "Gargoyles").
1. (One of your points). Batman is a crime-fighter because his parents were killed by criminals in front of him when he was a boy, and so he HAS to fight crime as a means of coping with his loss. Goliath was himself grieved by the slaughter of his clan, but that's not why he fights crime in New York; it's because it's a natural evolution for the 1990's of his "Gargoyles protect" role.
2. (Also from your Gargoyles Bible, or inspired by it). Gotham City is a gloom-ridden, cheerless city, overrun with crime and with bizarre freakish criminals such as the Joker, Two-Face, and Scarecrow. The gargoyles' New York is a more balanced city, where there is something of a crime problem, but coming from more "mundane" criminals like Tony Dracon (whose only bizarre trait is that white streak in his hair), and where there's wonders and beauty to be found rather than just misery and despair. (Although Jackal, Hyena, and Wolf all strike me, particularly after "Upgrade", as definitely Arkham Asylum material).
3. Batman's entire life is focused on crime-fighting, with Bruce Wayne as just a necessary mask that he wears, something of a facade. (I recall reading once in a book about the making of "Batman:TAS" that in the production team's view of him, his temptation isn't to give up being Batman and lead a normal life as Bruce Wayne; it's to discard his Bruce Wayne identity and become Batman full-time). The gargoyles have been able to find lives outside of just patrolling the city and protecting it: Goliath reads (particularly the classics such as Shakespeare and Dostoyevsky), the trio go to music concerts and movies, Lexington also pursues his interests in technological matters, Broadway and Hudson learn how to read, the trio all court Angela when she joins them, etc. Quite different from Batman's grim, driven single-mindedness.
Well, there are probably some more, but these are the ones that I could immediately think of. Are there any, in your opinion, that I've missed?
Greg responds...
I once wrote an entire memo for Buena Vista listing tons of differences. (I'm sure I've got it around here somewhere.) But you got the main ones.
But I'd nuance your first one a bit with one important point. The Waynes were murdered before Bruce's eyes, when he was a CHILD.
Goliath's clan was massacred out of his sight when he was an adult. And some of the clan was saved. I'm not trying to quantitatively weigh one tragedy against the other, but once Goliath survived his "suicide attempt" and was reunited with the other gargs, you can see how, as an adult, he could find it much easier to cope.
Batman's scarred for life. Goliath has a horrible tragedy in his background. He'll never forget it, but he has moved on. Bruce can never move on. Never.
And fundamentally, there was one other major structural difference. Batman wound up with a large extended cast of characters. But that series was fundamentally about a single hero.
Gargoyles was always written as an ensemble piece, a la HILL STREET BLUES. Goliath was our Furillo. He was never our Batman.
Vashkoda writes...
Hi Greg! You may have already answered this in some shape or form, but in case this hasn't been asked: We know that Goliath started having feelings for Elisa possibly as early as "Awakenings", and that he first began to realize how beautiful she was in "The Mirror". But when (if ever) did Demona begin to suspect that Goliath and Elisa loved each other? Or did she never consider the possiblility because the idea of a gargoyle loving a human was ludicrous?
Greg responds...
I think that subconsciously Demona suspected it as early as Awakening V. That's one of the reasons she hates Elisa so much.
E.J. Kalafarski writes...
Hi Greg. Did you walk into the World Tour with the intention that Goliath would loose all the items the Gargoyles had been safeguarding? I mean, by the time the travelers got home, Goliath had lost the Grimorum (destroyed), the Eye of Odin (recovered by Odin), and the Phoenix Gate (lost in time). I realize the Gargoyles picked up the Guatemalan Medallion along the way, but was the concept of Goliath returning home with none of these items a conscious decision on your part, or just the way things worked out? Thanks.
Greg responds...
Yes. Conscious. That's why I had him guarantee that no one would ever use those items again. Arrogance, even heroic arrogance, deserves comeuppance. And I liked the irony that it was Goliath himself who first used the Gate and the Eye. No one takes either item from him. He chooses to use them.
Chapter X: "The Edge"
By the end of this episode, everyone is happy.
Both Goliath and Xanatos are afraid they've lost their edge. Both are convinced by the end that they've regained it. Both are at least partially deceiving themselves. [One of the little ambiguities that I love about the Xanatos tags is that one way to interpret them is that David is just full of it. He loses, but claims victory anyway.]
But David is just so lovable in this episode. You gotta love the villain who does NOT penalize his subordinate for beating him in a judo match. And he has such great audacious dialogue (kudos to Michael Reaves and Jonathan Frakes). A few approximate samples:
--"I'm the best friend you have."
--"If you're going to be picky, we won't get anywhere."
--"You're taking this much too personally."
And those were all in one scene. A scene where he's just standing out there awaiting their arrival. I mean, a guy as busy as he is... Is that confidence/arrogance or what?
And he's not afraid to get his hands dirty. Giving X the armor was essential. Up to this point, David had been only the brains. But to be a true reverse-hero, he had to be a warrior as well. Here we showed he had what it takes to mix it up. But always without being stupid. Question: How many of you knew the "red robot" was Xanatos in armor before the tag? Of course, now it seems obvious, but what about the first time you saw this ep?
And yet Elisa "Wouldn't want his karma." What goes around comes around. All that arrogance, had to receive some commeuppance. (Can anyone say Oberon?)
One thing that I thought was TOO OBVIOUS was the Steel Clan theft of the EYE OF ODIN. I would have preferred if that scene had been more ambiguous in Act One. Preferred that the audience maybe think that the Robot WAS Goliath, so that when Matt takes aim at the cliffhanger, we think he's going to shoot Goliath. The cliffhanger doesn't really play as is. Only Elisa is fooled, not the audience.
Everyone wonders why Xanatos donated the Eye to the Museum of MODERN Art. (Maybe because it had mediocre security, but adequate security cameras.) But what I want to know is whether or not Edvard Munch's "The Scream" is really at that museum?
Speaking of THE EYE, I may have mentioned that this was actually the idea of the Disney interactive video game people. We wanted to be synergistic, and I kinda liked the whole idea, so we put it into the show. It was another of our step-by-step additions to the continuity. Intro it as a minor maguffin. A dewdad for Xanatos. And build from there, with the eventual plan to actually make it Odin's eye. At some point in all this, we completely forgot that the idea came from the interactive people. We went back to see them months and months later and were reminded. Luckily the concepts hadn't gotten too far away from each other. But the design did. Unfortunately, our design wound up looking a bit Egyptian for my tastes. The Interactive design had a great Raven motif. (Oh, well.)
New characters (more or less):
A cameo by Derek.
The first mention of the Emir.
The first appearance of Travis Marshall. Michael and I worked this guy out together. He wouldn't be one of those fluff journalists. He'd be old school. He wouldn't whitewash David, just because the guy was a rich man. We always made sure to give Travis that edge. And still, I always felt we underused him. In this episode, Matt gives him a lift in Derek's chopper. Matt says, "You owe me one." Eventually, I'd like to see Matt collect on that favor in a story focusing on the two of them.
And speaking of Matt...
The first real appearance of Matt Bluestone. This guy was largely Michael Reaves' creation. (Although the "Bluestone" name was one of our earlier choices for Elisa's last name. After Chavez, Reed and Chavez, but before Maza.) At first, I admit I was dubious about him being a conspiracy nut. But it so worked. And this was the first time I ever worked with Tom Wilson. He's just so great. And so damn funny to have in the booth. (I love him in FREAKS & GEEKS.)
Matt & Elisa discuss the Illuminati, UFO's and Loch Ness. I love how dubious she is, with her inside joke: "Believe me, the world's strange enough as it is." Little does she know.
But my favorite thing about Matt is that ultimately he's a healthy influence on Elisa... "Maybe that's when you need one [a partner] the most." He's just a really good guy.
As usual, characters keep their promises. Matt vows to find out what those creatures (the gargs) are. And by God, eventually he does.
More on continuity...
Elisa's only JUST coming back to work. In cartoon terms, the fact that we waited this long after her gunshot wound, was a relative eternity. The height of cartoon realism. It doesn't seem like very long, but months passed between the original airings of DEADLY FORCE and THE EDGE.
And Chavez won't let her go back on the job without a partner. Michael conceptualized Matt -- after I mandated the creation of Elisa's partner. Cops have partners. It is one of the defining things about cops. When cop-shows show cops working solo, it always bugs me. I felt we got away with it for a bit. But it was time to make Elisa a more real cop. And that meant a partner. Not a bad guy. But someone who could potentially cause her trouble. And yet still really be her partner.
Broadway is still very solicitous toward Elisa. Taking the tv from her. It's sweet.
Random stuff:
The show is gorgeous to look at. (Thanks Roy, et al.)
I love Lexington's line when he regains consciousness: "We're still alive. How come?"
Watching the show this time, my daughter was very nervous that the Statue of Liberty would be damaged in the battle between our gargs and the Steel Clan. But when Broadway nailed one robot by impaling him with a metal claw from the other robot, Erin said, "Nice one."
Goliath is reading Dostoevsky. Are you?
Squee writes...
Hi Greg,
Im wondering, What are Goliaths stats, espically how old he really is?
Greg responds...
I'm not much on stats. He hatched in 938 A.D. He slept for almost exactly 1000 years (during which time he didn't age) and he normally (i.e. before and after the BIG SLEEP) ages at half-speed. You can do the math. Or you can check the archives as I've answered this question many times before.
: « First : « 100 : « 10 : Displaying #426 - #435 of 481 records. : 10 » : Last » :